Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Analysis
Ugly Orange Tones =white balance on automatic=
Page 1 of 2 next>
Jan 31, 2022 15:07:50   #
cony25
 
So how can I get this right on the spot? and not in post-production?

Also any recommendations for post productions? getting the tones right?
Please help!


(Download)

Reply
Jan 31, 2022 15:20:33   #
rcarol
 
I have the same issue with all of my Canon cameras. Since I shoot RAW, I choose to fix it in post. However, you can select incandescent instead of auto and that should get you closer to matching the lighting for the interior of the church.

Reply
Jan 31, 2022 15:28:24   #
Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan
 
So there is a relatively easy answer to your question if we knew what your camera is capable of doing.

Reply
 
 
Jan 31, 2022 15:29:01   #
larryepage Loc: Collin County, Texas
 
cony25 wrote:
So how can I get this right on the spot? and not in post-production?

Also any recommendations for post productions? getting the tones right?
Please help!


I have had this exact problem before. Please note that I did not try to access your EXIF data to see if you used flash, but my best guess is that you did, because the white of the robes in the foreground is quite good. The problem is the ambient lighting in the sanctuary outside the range and influence of your flash. My guess is that the color of the lighting for the room is probably somewhere around 2700-3000K, and most likely more toward the lower value. This is even more yellow/red than would balance with the "Incandescent" selection on your camera's White Balance menu. The result is that if you use flash, you can get the WB correct either for the foreground or for the room, but not both. Auto White Balance is not going to work for you in a situation like this.

To fix it, you are going to have to color correct everything that is "wrong" while leaving the three principle subjects unaltered. To prevent it, you have a couple of options. Some flashes either come with or have available color-correction filters. You could use the one for incandescent (and set your camera to that choice) and probably be close enough to get overall pleasing results, even if the background is not absolutely correct. Or you can experiment beforehand and find the Kelvin WB setting that renders proper results under the ambient lighting, then not use your flash at all. Be prepared to be pretty drastic with your adjustment. I was shocked when I had to go to 2700K in my case, because the roomo did not ordinarily give the impression of being that yellow.

You will be trusting your camera to be sensitive enough while retaining enough dynamic range to do the job acceptably with out flash. You will have to experiment. And you may need to adjust the parameters in your Picture Control settings (Contrast, Saturation, Sharpness, etc.) to get the best results.

Reply
Jan 31, 2022 15:48:49   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
Personally, my experience is all digital cameras have great difficulty in these lighting situations. You asked how to do in the camera.

There are several tools that you use to either (a) capture a reference image for editing later or (b) create a custom WB in the camera. The reference image can be a grey card, something you can get as a credit card size you always have handy in your wallet. See WhiBal. You'd just stand under the light in the same position as the priest and take a close-up (frame filling) image of the WhiBal card under those lights. Then, use that reference image later in editing. Other tools cover the camera lens opening, and again, you photograph the scene and lights and then tell the camera to use that all white (yellow) image as the WB reference. See your camera manual for the process and a tool like the Vello Universal WB Handheld Disc.

Personally, I think your use of AUTO WB and editing in LR is the best and most efficient approach. As annotated below, pull the image into LR and use the WB 'eye dropper'. You can click around the image looking for something 'white'. Or, use the reference image from the WhiBal or Vello image. My older LR6 only gets 'close' where I still need to adjust even LR's thoughts on the proper WB. You need to assure you're working from a calibrated monitor.

As mentioned in earlier comments, shooting in RAW gives more finite control over the K temp and the Red-Green tint in your digital editor. You might also look at your flash usage. The EXIF shows and EOS 80D in 'normal' program, with a flash firing at 1/80sec, ISO-1600, f/5.6. I think you could have used different exposure parameters, outside of program, where you could manage an external Speedlite flash to output more light, with a smaller aperture, faster shutter and lower ISO-1600. That, all that is a bit more complicated where just updating the WB in Lightroom is easy enough.


(Download)

Reply
Jan 31, 2022 16:22:12   #
cony25
 
My commentary to all of you is that the church did not seem this orange to the naked eye. Light just looked a little off orange. This is the trippy issue.

Reply
Jan 31, 2022 16:29:00   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
cony25 wrote:
My commentary to all of you is that the church did not seem this orange to the naked eye. Light just looked a little off orange. This is the trippy issue.


You've 'mixed' the light, your flash with the different lights of the church interior. As mentioned in other replies, the camera is really going to have a hard time with this situation.

You can read or watch more at:

https://photographylife.com/definition/white-balance
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/white-balance.htm
https://youtu.be/_VxvCck6dPU

Or google your own results, such as: digital white balance

Reply
 
 
Jan 31, 2022 16:29:50   #
amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
 
There are two things going on here...

One is that many large venues use fluorescent or sodium vapor lighting. That "fools" camera meters. Basically the lighting cycles on and off very rapidly. 60X per second in the US (50X a sec in some other parts of the world). This causes a lot underexposure problems when shooting under that type of lighting. Typically there's a yellowish color shift related to the under-exposure, too.

Your Canon 80D has an Anti-Flicker mode that can solve the problem. When that's enabled the camera will detect the light cycling and time the shutter release to match the lights' peak output. Except for the most entry-level models (Rebel T7, SL3 and T100... M50 Mark II and M200), this feature is found on all Canon DSLRs and mirrorless since it was first introduced with the 7D Mark II in 2014.

Shooting sports with faster shutters speeds "under the lights" I had a lot of trouble with lighting. Prior to the 7DII there was no real solution. Flash wasn't an option and shutter speeds that can reduce the problem are too slow for sports (also make hand held shots less stable). About half my images under the lights would have exposure problems, often to the point the images weren't recoverable. All I could do was take lots of extra shots to increase the odds of getting some good exposures. Once I got cameras with Anti-Flicker and started using it, I see very, very few images with those problems any more. It's been a huge game changer!

You also will get better results if you set a Custom White Balance. Yes, you can try selecting the Tungsten WB preset, but it will be wrong as much or more often than it's right. You also can shoot RAW and change from one WB preset to another during post-processing, but that has the same problem. Lighting comes in a wide variety of "colors". They also change color rendition as they age. Unless you install the bulbs yourself or buy a very expensive type of color meter that can tell you the temperature of the lighting, it's just a guess what you're working with. And all the preset WB are essentially just estimates. Rounded off numbers, rather than precisely matched to the actual color of the light.

Learn to set a Custom WB and you can eliminate these sorts of problems. It's easy. All you need is a neutral target. I frequently use a couple Lastolite (or Manfrotto) EZ Balance for that purpose. These are a nice, large fabric target that folds up small for storage. EZYbalance are available in three sizes. Mine are the medium size (20"). https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375202-REG/Lastolite_LL_LR2050_EZYBalance_Grey_White_Card.html?sts=pi&pim=Y

For portraiture in particular, I sometimes instead use Warm Card targets. Three of those are designed to create a slightly warmer image that's often desirable when shooting portraits. Warm Cards also come with a couple that will cause a cooler bias, as well as one to help correct the ugly greenish tint many fluorescent lights cause. There's a gray card/white card that's perfectly neutral, too (serving much the same purpose as the Lastolite targets). Warm Cards are available in two sizes. I use the smaller ones. https://www.vortexmediastore.com/pages/warmcards-white-balance-system

EDIT: The EXIF says no flash was used.

Finally, I hope you don't mind... I looked at your image in Photoshop and did some tweaking. I added a #80 cooling filter as well as just a little green. It started to look a bit flat, so I boosted saturation a bit and ended up adding a weak red filter. I also adjusted the mid-tone exposure slightly. And, sorry, I had to try to straighten it a bit! But you can only do a limited amount of corrections working with a JPEG such as this. See below for the results (be sure to click through to the larger version, for some reason the "thumbnails" in posts here on UHH often look oversaturated and color shifted):


(Download)

Reply
Jan 31, 2022 16:31:23   #
larryepage Loc: Collin County, Texas
 
cony25 wrote:
My commentary to all of you is that the church did not seem this orange to the naked eye. Light just looked a little off orange. This is the trippy issue.


Yes...our eyes and brains compensate. But it was enough that it caused Auto WB to get really confused. That's why I've learned not to use (or at least not to rely on) Auto WB. I'm probably a minority of one, but I am still convinced.

Reply
Jan 31, 2022 17:08:16   #
User ID
 
cony25 wrote:
So how can I get this right on the spot? and not in post-production?

Also any recommendations for post productions? getting the tones right?
Please help!

It appears that the gown is not actually white. I don’t know what color the walls and floor actually were. But greatly pull yellow and slightly pull green looks okay using just the in-phone editor. You can apply similar settings to the in-camera WB to get decent SOOC jpegs, but for unrepeatable events the raw file is your insurance policy.


(Download)

Reply
Jan 31, 2022 18:02:08   #
cony25
 
amfoto1 wrote:
There are two things going on here...

One is that many large venues use fluorescent or sodium vapor lighting. That "fools" camera meters. Basically the lighting cycles on and off very rapidly. 60X per second in the US (50X a sec in some other parts of the world). This causes a lot underexposure problems when shooting under that type of lighting. Typically there's a yellowish color shift related to the under-exposure, too.

Your Canon 80D has an Anti-Flicker mode that can solve the problem. When that's enabled the camera will detect the light cycling and time the shutter release to match the lights' peak output. Except for the most entry-level models (Rebel T7, SL3 and T100... M50 Mark II and M200), this feature is found on all Canon DSLRs and mirrorless since it was first introduced with the 7D Mark II in 2014.

Shooting sports with faster shutters speeds "under the lights" I had a lot of trouble with lighting. Prior to the 7DII there was no real solution. Flash wasn't an option and shutter speeds that can reduce the problem are too slow for sports (also make hand held shots less stable). About half my images under the lights would have exposure problems, often to the point the images weren't recoverable. All I could do was take lots of extra shots to increase the odds of getting some good exposures. Once I got cameras with Anti-Flicker and started using it, I see very, very few images with those problems any more. It's been a huge game changer!

You also will get better results if you set a Custom White Balance. Yes, you can try selecting the Tungsten WB preset, but it will be wrong as much or more often than it's right. You also can shoot RAW and change from one WB preset to another during post-processing, but that has the same problem. Lighting comes in a wide variety of "colors". They also change color rendition as they age. Unless you install the bulbs yourself or buy a very expensive type of color meter that can tell you the temperature of the lighting, it's just a guess what you're working with. And all the preset WB are essentially just estimates. Rounded off numbers, rather than precisely matched to the actual color of the light.

Learn to set a Custom WB and you can eliminate these sorts of problems. It's easy. All you need is a neutral target. I frequently use a couple Lastolite (or Manfrotto) EZ Balance for that purpose. These are a nice, large fabric target that folds up small for storage. EZYbalance are available in three sizes. Mine are the medium size (20"). https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375202-REG/Lastolite_LL_LR2050_EZYBalance_Grey_White_Card.html?sts=pi&pim=Y

For portraiture in particular, I sometimes instead use Warm Card targets. Three of those are designed to create a slightly warmer image that's often desirable when shooting portraits. Warm Cards also come with a couple that will cause a cooler bias, as well as one to help correct the ugly greenish tint many fluorescent lights cause. There's a gray card/white card that's perfectly neutral, too (serving much the same purpose as the Lastolite targets). Warm Cards are available in two sizes. I use the smaller ones. https://www.vortexmediastore.com/pages/warmcards-white-balance-system

EDIT: The EXIF says no flash was used.

Finally, I hope you don't mind... I looked at your image in Photoshop and did some tweaking. I added a #80 cooling filter as well as just a little green. It started to look a bit flat, so I boosted saturation a bit and ended up adding a weak red filter. I also adjusted the mid-tone exposure slightly. And, sorry, I had to try to straighten it a bit! But you can only do a limited amount of corrections working with a JPEG such as this. See below for the results (be sure to click through to the larger version, for some reason the "thumbnails" in posts here on UHH often look oversaturated and color shifted):
There are two things going on here... br br One i... (show quote)



Wow!! Thank yo so much for your explanation!!! you could be a teacher!

Reply
 
 
Jan 31, 2022 22:28:28   #
OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919
 
rcarol wrote:
I have the same issue with all of my Canon cameras. Since I shoot RAW, I choose to fix it in post. However, you can select incandescent instead of auto and that should get you closer to matching the lighting for the interior of the church.


Certainly something as important as a wedding shot should not depend on automatic white balance. And seeing a cast you don't like you should have cooled it down to the next discrete choice or used the white dress and manual white balance. But probably just going to the next cooler setting would have helped. From the point of view--not being there--what you have looks like what it could have been?----ew

Reply
Jan 31, 2022 23:40:56   #
E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
 
cony25 wrote:
So how can I get this right on the spot? and not in post-production?

Also any recommendations for post-productions? getting the tones right?
Please help!


As a log-time wedding photograher, I have worked in thousands of churches. It available lighting can be extremely challenging as to colour balance more often There can be all kinds of mixed light- some daylight coming in through windows, some colour bu stained glass, old light bulb or fluorescent tubes, a mixture of new and old lamps, mercury or sodium lamps wit discontinous spectrums, LEDs and if yo are lucky one kind of light source that you can custom white balance for. The light may be uneven as well.

Problem is, if you are shooting a ceremony and need to capture the action, it is difficult to arrive at a custom white balance by testing and adjusting. It is unlikely that you will always be able to arrive at the correct colour balce without any post-processing. The automatic white balance shod get into the ballpark, enough to enable you to make the correction in post without too much trouble.

Even a pre-set for "tungsten lighting will yield warmer than normal colours because most interior light in churches is of a lower Kelvin temperature. My rule is, well it is a church, so only God knows what's in the lighting fixtures. If I have time, I can get in earlier and establish a white balance but it still may need to be tweaked in the post.

In the attached horizon is levelled, and the young lady's face is dodged to reveal more detail. image, the colour is somewhat better. The post-processing took 5 minutes.

If it is permitted, the use of flash or multiple flash use as a primary light source or fill can yield better results.



Reply
Feb 1, 2022 00:47:02   #
E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
 
Or



Reply
Feb 1, 2022 03:36:25   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
Mixed lighting is always going to be a problem, not just for WB but also in post processing. If you're shooting raw, the WB setting isn't baked in but it will be used as a starting point with most editors. Paul's idea of using the WB sampler (the "dropper") is a good one but it's not without its problems. The HSL tool will show that the whites of the gowns are influenced by green, aqua and blue as well as the ambient yellow and orange, and it's not consistent across the surfaces of the gowns, so the results that the sampler give you will depend on where you've sampled from. I got the best result sampling from low down on the gown of the guy on the right, about level with his legs.

However, since the lighting is mixed, any WB or Tint settings will work well for some parts but not for other parts, so getting a setting that suits the whole image will be either difficult or impossible. The problem is aggravated by the use of flash since the closer subjects will be affected by the flash but the more distant background will have been affected mainly by the ambient lighting. You could edit for the subjects but the background represents the majority of the frame contents so it's not irrelevant. In fact the worst of the overcooked look is in the background yellow and orange, in particular the steps that the pastor is standing on.

I would normally suggest colour correcting for the skin tones but in this case the background requires at least as much consideration. The answer is to keep an eye on both as you colour-correct. Where mixed lighting is concerned, the HSL tool (or whatever your equivalent is) is your friend. For my edit I used it to target mainly yellow and orange - and that is after I'd used the WB sampler (which gave a large WB shift towards blue and a Tint shift towards green). Using Lr's HSL tool I tint-shifted yellow towards orange and desaturated quite a bit, and tint-shifted orange towards yellow and desaturated quite a bit. To help the skin tones I tint-shifted red towards orange a little (which didn't affect the ambient lighting). I used the podium steps as a reference for yellow and orange because that's where any overcooked look was showing up most. In fact they really deserved their own adjustments via a selection (you could say the same about the skin tones).

As others have noticed, our eyes adjust for ambient light. Since it's hard to gauge such an effect the best thing is to PP for a natural look. You will be the best person to judge which "natural look" is most realistic.
.


(Download)

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Analysis
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2022 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.